$1.$ Prior to accepting a litigation$-$related engagement, the forensic accountant should consider whether they or their firm is professionally competent, objective and free of conflicts of interest with respect to the litigation matter.

a$.$ True

b$.$ False

$2.$ Which of the following is NOT an appropriate factor to consider as to whether an expert's testimony or an expert's report will be admissable in Court?

a$.$ Whether the analytical approach used achieves the result or opinion that the client desires.

b$.$ Whether the theory or technique is tested or testable.

c$.$ Whether the approach or methodology has been subjected to peer review or publication.

d$.$ Whether the approach used by the expert is generally accepted within the professional community.

e$.$ All of the above are appropriate considerations.

$3.$ The seminal court case that provides guidance on the admissability of expert testimony in U$.$S$.$ federal courts is:

a$.$ Daubert v$.$ Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

b$.$ Mattco Forge, Inc. v$.$ Arthur Young and Co$.$

c$.$ Crandall Scuba v$.$ PADI

d$.$ Shadow Traffic Network, et al$.$ v$.$ The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

$4.$ Which of the following is NOT a potential basis for exclusion of an expert report based on a reliability challenge?

a$.$ Zhang used a well$-$accepted approach, is a recognized expert and did careful work to analyze damages using all the relevant evidence, but reached a different measure of damages than the opposing expert.

b$.$ Emily is testifying as a financial expert. She analyzed all the transactions that were provided by counsel, but the information that the attorneys provided was incomplete.

c$.$ Lourdes prepared an opinion of value based on a using a shortcut rule of thumb often used by industry participants, without other bases for her opinion.

d$.$ All of these are potential bases to exclude an expert report based on challenges to reliability of the opinion.

$5.$ In the context of litigation, damages are generally NOT recoverable for losses beyond an amount that the evidence permits to be established with reasonable certainty.

a$.$ True

b$.$ False

$6.$ Eliza opened a new book store. It had been open only two months when there was a fire that destroyed the building and all Eliza's inventory.$$ Eliza sued the commercial landlord, who was found to be responsible for the fire.

Eliza did not have reliable budgets or forecasts.$$ The first two months were not profitable, because of a lot of non$-$recurring start up expenses..

Which approach would be most appropriate to determine his lost profits?

a$.$ Yardstick or benchmark approaches comparing Eliza's store to other businesses just like hers.

b$.$ A "before and after" approach relying on the two start$-$up months' data.

c$.$ Eliza's damages can not be calculated because there is no way to establish damages with insufficient sales and cost history.

d$.$ A disgorgement approach based on the landlord's profits.